MEDIA ROOTS — A pair of internet archivists who call themselves ‘Neuro Linguistic Programming’ have uploaded Part Two of US corporate media print publications from the immediate days and weeks following 9/11.  The duo plans to post multiple full issues of Time and Newsweek as well as other timely magazines that are filled with blatant fearmongering and propaganda about terrorism. 

Following 9/11, news media accelerated at an amazing rate, and most companies soon adopted internet versions of their paper or magazines.  Before this was commonplace, many interesting pieces of information printed about that day most likely were never reprinted again–due to false information or just abandonment by the propagandists.  As we know, many government narratives and unfounded claims about 9/11 were re-printed without any journalistic investigation. 

Check out Part One, ‘The Terrorism Survival Guide’ here.  Part Two, featured below, gives us a look at a Newsweek titled ‘Biological & Chemical Terror: How Scared Should You Be?’  The featured photo is a man wearing a gasmask, and the entire issue focuses on bio terrorism.  Throughout the magazine, that question is addressed repeatedly, and all answered the same way: be absolutely terrified.  We hope that these archivists continue this fascinating project, it could uncover aspects of the ‘War on Terror’ that most journalists and researchers have completely forgotten about.  Above all, it reveals the extent of the conditioning the American people were subject to immediately after the traumatization of our nation. They have put the issue up in PDF format which can be downloaded here as well as a slideshow (see below).

Robbie Martin for Media Roots

***

Note:  The slideshow of the full Newsweek issue ‘How Scared Should You Be?’ looks best at full screen by clicking the box in the right corner.  Click play to start.  Click the pause button to stop the slideshow from progressing automatically on the right corner.

 ***

Abby Martin of RT TV interviews former Captain Ray Lews about his case

RT TV – Retired Captain Ray Lewis served within the ranks of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department for nearly a quarter of a century. Now he is at odds against the force’s higher ups, however, over his role with Occupy Wall Street.

Captain Lewis became a regular at protest and rallies since the infancy of the Occupy movement last year. Regularly donning his Philadelphia PD uniform, Lewis was caught at demonstrations across the country demanding for changes within the system. Speaking with RT, though, the 24-year veteran of the force says it hasn’t been easy.

After first involving himself with OWS, Lewis says he received a letter from the department condemning his uniformed protests. “They want to make sure that no other officers join me in promoting this Occupy movement,” he tells RT. According to the captain, the aesthetic of a uniformed officer rallying against the backbone of the law enforcement industry is the reason behind the department’s demands.

“It is my belief that they were pressured by corporate America, because the one sign I carry on a daily basis is to ask people to watch the documentary Inside Job,” says Lewis. “Inside Job is a scathing, indicting film of banks, specifically in the 2008 financial collapse, and anybody who watches that documentary will fully understand the corruption of our banks in this country.”

The ties between the police and the nation’s financial institutions might not be clear cut, but Lewis attests that it is certainly there.

“In Philadelphia, the Fraternal Order of Police — a lot of cops want to be the president of that union — and they have elections. And these elections are run just like any other political election: they are based on money. A lot of advertising goes into these elections and those cops don’t pay for that advertising out of their back pockets. This advertising is paid for by corporations, banks, financial institutions.

“Subsequently, when you are elected, you are beholden to those financial institutions. And when I come out condemning those financial institutions, if the president of the [union] wants to get continuing contributions, he better pay heed to the banks,” explains Lewis. Now, he says, his benefits with the Philly PD could be revoked if the department decides to pursue an investigation into his role with the protest movement.

Lewis says that the union’s response to his participation in the Occupy movement wasn’t exactly what he had expected. He tells RT he “was taken aback” when he received a letter in the mail from high higher-ups at the Fraternal Order of Police.

“They threatened me with having a hearing, perhaps to expel me,” he says. “I was surprised that they took that extent, without even giving me the courtesy of a phone call and finding out exactly what I was doing; what I was about.”

After going public with his grievances over his demands, Lewis was let off the hook — for now. He says that the way the department acted over his involvement with the Occupy movement should be a chilling wake up call to the rest of the country, though.

“When they come out and say what I’m doing is illegal or improper and give me an order to immediately cease and desist wearing my uniform…or they will take any and all unnecessary action to stop me, what’s so egregious about this is it sends the message to officers that they can violate people’s First Amendment rights,” he says.

Today Lewis says he has yet to be expelled but is still sure that the department will continue to investigate his role with OWS. As for the movement itself, he says he has no expectations but is still behind it 100 percent.

“It’s not going to do any good wondering where it’s going to go,” he says. “I’d rather spend my time and my positive energy on determining what path I can take, what can I do to further the goals of the movement.”

RT TV

RT TV – The looming threat of cyberterrorism is being ramped up by the day–from government officials to mainstream media pundits–who say that cyberterror will soon outweigh terrorism as the number one security threat facing the United States.

It’s a threat that’s all too certain, as the federal government continues to make the claim stressing how it’s not a matter of if, but when a cyber attack will occur in this the US.  At a recent congressional hearing entitled “America is Under Cyber Attack: Why Urgent Action is Needed,” Subcommittee Chairman Michael McCaul exclaimed how “It’s not a matter of if, but when a cyber Pearl Harbor will occur.”

The rhetoric is so pervasive, that there is even an entire cyberterror exhibit called “Weapons of Mass Disruption” at the International Spy Museum in Washington, DC, a museum whose executive director spent 36 years at the CIA.  The room displays multiple disaster scenarios it claims are likely to happen when a cyber attack destroys the power grid and infrastructure of this country.

Mark Stout, historian at the International Spy Museum, explains that the room is not there to cause panic–it simply exists as a beacon of awareness about the issue.  He says that as technology advances along with our reliance on and integration with computer systems, it’s becoming more important to focus on cyberterrorism.  However, Stout does express the similar talking point of the likely possibility of this happening in the near future, warning that “there will come a time and it will be within our lifetime, probably relatively soon, that there will be a major cyber terrorist attack.” 

Also on display at the “Weapons of Mass Disruption” exhibit is a well produced graphic film reel of government officials and top military brass urging warnings about the threat.  “We know that there are half a dozen countries in the world that have developed cyber weapons,” states James A. Lewis, Director of Center for Strategic International Studies, in the film. 

However, the threat surpasses nation states.  The government is also pointing fingers at ubiquitous web entities such as Anonymous, the leaderless hacktivist group who has been shutting down highly secure government websites in addition to their repeated calls for mass civil unrest in the US.

Overall, the cyberterror hype seems to be working–a recent poll reveals that Americans are now more scared of cyberterrorism than actual terrorism. 

In response to the climate of fear, the federal government has already started to draft legislation to deal with the threat. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, is a bill that would permit massive collusion between corporations and the government to gain access to private user data.  It has already passed the House, and is now awaiting a Senate vote.

Critics of the legislation warn that the bills proposed are too broad, and could pave the way for government abuse.  “When it comes to protecting our civil rights and civil liberties, we don’t usually give the government a blank check, and that’s what these bills have done in a lot of ways,” explains Matt Wood, Policy Director for Free Press.  He continues to describe how the government’s excessive response doesn’t match the threat, and that these laws could be used simply for corporations to capitalize off the elimination of privacy at the risk of impeding Net Neutrality.  “It could be a competitive threat, it doesn’t have to be something you and I define as a cyber security threat, just a threat to their current bottom line or business,” Wood states.

Whether or not CISPA passes the Senate, one thing remains clear.  The government will continue its constant attempts to control the Internet, and the blanket threat of cyberterrorism may be the perfect avenue to convince the people of this country into giving up their rights to privacy on the Internet once and for all.

Written by Abby Martin for RT TV

Photo by flickr user AdamSelwood

MEDIA ROOTS — If you were ever wondering exactly how large corporations ‘cover up’ malfeasance, look no further than the India Times.  Ag-giant Monsanto has colluded with one of the largest papers in Asia, the India Times, to heavily downplay the notion that Indian farmers have been committing suicide at abnormally high rates as a result of Monsanto’s clamp down on crop sharing.  This is a perfect example of powerful interests conspiring with a major media outlet in order to conceal the truth. 

Robbie Martin of Media Roots 

***

COUNTER PUNCH — Three and a half years ago, at a time when the controversy over the use of genetically modified seeds was raging across India, a newspaper story painted a heartening picture of the technology’s success.

“There are no suicides here and people are prospering on agriculture. The switchover from the conventional cotton to Bollgard or Bt Cotton here has led to a social and economic transformation in the villages [of Bhambraja and Antargaon] in the past three-four years.” (Times of India, October 31, 2008).

So heartening was this account that nine months ago, the same story was run again in the same newspaper, word for word. (Times of India, August 28, 2011). Never mind that the villagers themselves had a different story to tell.

“There have been 14 suicides in our village,” a crowd of agitated farmers in Bhambraja told shocked members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture in March this year. “Most of them after Bt came here.” The Hindu was able to verify nine that had occurred between 2003 and 2009. Activist groups count five more since then. All after 2002, the year the Times of India story says farmers here switched to Bt. Prospering on agriculture? The villagers told the visibly shaken MPs: “Sir, lots of land is lying fallow. Many have lost faith in farming.” Some have shifted to soybean where “at least the losses are less.”

Read more about How the Times of India Colluded with Monsanto in Fake Reports of BT Cotton Successes 

© 2012 Counterpunch 

***

Photo by Flickr US National Archives

MEDIA ROOTS –  Our very own Abby Martin, the founder and editor-in-chief of all of the content on this website has been over at Russia Today (RT) America this past month learning the ropes of live TV journalism.  Abby has over 2 hours of live content broadcast on every Wednesday and Friday at 4, 5, 7 and 8 EST.

Recently, the network has been giving Abby bigger guests like Sibel Edmonds, Alex Jones, a fugitive from hacktivist group Anonymous and even retired generals.  Interview guests who come on TV shows have certain expectations, either they will be walking into a predetermined  partisan hackery ‘lion’s den,’ knowing that they will have to argue from within the left vs. right box with a TV host who is basically a skilled (or not so skilled actor).  So what does a combative and hard hitting interview look like these days in a world where questions are complete softballs, and ‘hard’ questions seem cultivated, manufactured, or even staged?  Can you remember the last time you watched a TV news special and watched a TV show host outside of the paradigm of partisan hackery have a meaningful argument with a guest? I sure can’t.

Luckily we have Abby Martin on our side, asking tough questions that come from the heart, not from a page or a talking point.  In a single day, Abby makes two ‘retired’ generals red faced and flustered by challenging their dogmatic narratives.  Usually a TV news reporter has a certain level of deferrence and authoritative ‘respect’ towards a sitting or ex military officer.  Abby very calmy throws that rule book out and speaks to these men as if they are normal everyday citizens, who spread dangerous and divisive baseless propaganda.  Both generals also try to inject their own agenda (we suspect it’s a think tank talking point) of saying that military spending isnt the main problem, instead they claim that entitlement programs, like welfare and food stamps, are really what’s bringing our economy down.

At Media Roots we would much rather have our tax dollars going to help poor and starving people instead of killing muslims and Arabs thousands of miles away in foreign countries.

Later that day, she had the chance to interview a member of Anonymous.  Instead of butting heads with him on the generic point that Anonymous is ‘criminal’ or hurting our image across the world, Abby asks him several challenging questions that have rarely if ever been asked of an Anonymous member.

“How do we know you’re not an FBI informant?”

“How do we know you’re really in Anonymous when the point of the group is to remain Anymous?”

“Don’t you think the government could use Anonymous coordinated attacks as an excuse to launch the war on cyberterror, further squashing civil rights of all Americans?”

He tries to answer as best he could, and you can tell that this man has never encountered questions like this before, forcing him to think outside of the predetermined ‘fixed’ argument that usually happens on these TV shows.

After having shows like Hardball, Crossfire, Hannity and Colmes forced down our throats for years, we’ve forgotten what truly combative hard hitting interviews look like on the news.  We’ve been accustomed to the equivalent of a WWF wrestling match between people with ‘opposing’ viewpoints in which individually reinforce a false paradigm, but when matched together solidify said paradigm into nearly inpenetrable propaganda for the general public.

Luckily Abby is here to start changing that direction and bringing back the fourth estate into live TV interviews.  Don’t stop what you’re doing Abby… you’re just getting this party started!

Robbie Martin for Media Roots

***

Watch these excellent interviews below: 

Abby Martin interviews ex Army Colonel about Defense Spending.

Abby Martin’s interview about Pentagon spending turns into a debate about the threat of Iran.

Abby Martin Interviews Commander X of Anonymous